Jaguar lead designer Ian Callum has stated many times in the press that pedestrian safety regulations left the front end of the new Jaguar XK looking a little bloated. Of course, as the LA Times points out, it’s hardly the first time something like this has happened. “The current Pontiac Solstice is a lovely roadster,” writes columnist Dan Neil. “Until you attach a front license plate — required by California law — on its bullet-smooth nose, after which the car looks like it has buckteeth.” But Neil argues over the years, Jaguar has had it worst. “No company has suffered more than Jaguar. In 1968, the U.S. Department of Transportation banned the use of glass-covered headlamps [...] By 1974, the Series III E-Type front end had been comically fitted with blocky, black-rubber Dagmars. For most of the next two decades, the company’s otherwise handsome cars (XJS, XJ6) were sandwiched between oversized chrome-and-rubber bumpers that looked like sterling-and-bakelite handles on a tea service.”
Zero obligation price quote from a trusted local dealer.
05/24, 11:13 AM
posted by:
Mike
but, how will we know what is best for us in the elites in Washington don’t tell us?
05/24, 11:16 AM
posted by:
Ryan H
It’s these damn pedestrian safety regulations which are killing elements of automotive design. If people would just stay off the road and pay attention to their surroundings, we wouldn’t have to worry about this.
05/24, 1:14 PM
posted by:
Chidori
I’ve been wondering about this for a while since I live in California, but why is it a law that we have to have a front license plate on our cars?!?!?
05/24, 1:27 PM
posted by:
Mike
so the constitutionally illegal (facing our accusers) photo radar vans and red-light cameras can know who you are.
05/24, 1:27 PM
posted by:
TW
#3. More revenue?
05/24, 5:29 PM
posted by:
Carlos
Some of them I can accept, like pedestrian safety regulations. Fewer broken legs, hips, and deaths are worth a slight reduction in car prettiness (especially if it’s the car driver that’s at fault). I think low bumpers should be mandatory and limits placed on how high headlights can be placed. But I don’t see the benefit of front license plates.
05/24, 5:57 PM
posted by:
RangeRoverBoy
Front plates for cars because….
High speed reverse car chases?
So the parking cop does not have to walk so far?
BTW New Mexico does not require them, I assumed they were just enjoying twice the profit.
05/24, 8:36 PM
posted by:
scotty
i’d say the countach had it the worst of all.
05/25, 12:03 AM
posted by:
Craig
Hmm… lower front bumpers to protect pedestrians….
So…. why is it that California also dislikes the lowering of one’s personal car? I don’t know what the legal minimum ride height has to be, and I don’t really like lowrider cars but it really sounds like a conflict of interest over there.
The Federal government would have me purchase a car with a bumper low enough to merely snap a pedestrian’s shins and not completely rip their knees apart.
The way modern vehicle design has been going, I only like a few supercars for the execution of form. Less expensive and more common cars just look boring and cheap unless you buy one that takes a bland body design and beefs it up, as in the case of the Mitsubishi Evolution. That car makes blandness a moot issue in favor of purpose.
For the majority of people who don’t drive factory econobox rockets, however, I think most cars for sale today look the same. Technology under the hood is what attracts buyers these days and most of the time you don’t even get that.
Modern cars of the 2000’s are boring.
05/25, 11:52 AM
posted by:
Shawn
Wisconsin has the front plate law as well, a lot of states do, not just Cali. I know Michigan is exempt from that law